High Court Kerala High Court

Madhukuttan vs State Of Kerala on 18 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
Madhukuttan vs State Of Kerala on 18 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 37337 of 2008(T)


1. MADHUKUTTAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.K.SAJEEV

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :18/12/2008

 O R D E R
                          R. BASANT, J.
            -------------------------------------------------
                W.P.(c) No. 37337 of 2008-T
            -------------------------------------------------
        Dated this the 18th day of December, 2008

                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered

alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.380 IPC.

Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The

petitioner had come to this Court for anticipatory bail and the

bail Bench of this Court by order dated 4/9/08 in

B.A.No.5375/08 has dismissed the application for anticipatory

bail.

2. The petitioner has again come to this Court with this

petition under Art.226 of the Constitution. What is his

grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that no proper investigation is being conducted. According to

him, the Investigating Officer, who is in a position to seize

the stolen gold ornaments which are allegedly available in a

jewellery shop as indicated from the order passed in the

W.P.(c) No. 37337 of 2008-T
-: 2 :-

anticipatory bail application has not been effected the seizure.

3. After the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.

(2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC)) which is followed by this Court in

Vasanthi Devi v. S.I. of Police (2008 (1) KLT 945), it is trite

that a person who is dissatisfied about the quality of the

investigation conducted must seek to invoke the jurisdiction of

the Magistrate under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. Such persons cannot

rush to this Court with petitions under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. or

Art.226 of the Constitution. The equally efficacious alternative

remedy available under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. has to be exhausted

before such persons come to this Court with a prayer for

invocation of the extraordinary inherent or constitutional

jurisdiction.

4. In this view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree

that any directions deserve to be issued under Art.226 of the

Constitution in this petition. This writ petition is accordingly

dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this

writ petition will not in any way fetter the right of the petitioner

to move the learned Magistrate for appropriate directions under

Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C.

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/

W.P.(c) No. 37337 of 2008-T
-: 3 :-